43

Quick summary Yes, bigger pixels do improve performance all else being equal, and Apple is doing a good thing by focusing on sensor size. However in this case the increase in size is so slight that the difference will be negligible, probably not living up to the level of improvement you may expect from their marketing. What does bigger pixels mean? This ...


13

In theory having more smaller pixels is better than having fewer large pixels. A small pixel will capture fewer photons and thus it's output is noisier, but by taking more samples the noise averages out, by simple resampling you can simulate the result of a sensor with fewer larger pixels. But you can do better than simply matching the result of larger ...


7

Your intuition is correct. What happened is that technology has improved. There has been lots of small improvements piling up, things like better micro-lenses, gapless microlenses, cleaner read paths, on-chip noise-reduction, less noise gain circuits. All this and more adds up to substantial improvement. Increasing megapixels which reduce pixel-sizes takes ...


6

To understand how a camera's pixel pitch may affect Depth of Field (DoF), you must first understand what DoF is as well as what it isn't. Regardless of the aperture of a lens, there will only be one distance that will be in focus. That is, there will only be one distance at which a point source of light will be focused to a single point on the recording ...


6

This is perspective distortion, and it is an inevitable outcome of projecting a three-d world onto a flat surface. See What is the difference between perspective distortion and barrel or pincushion distortion? for some details on different kinds of distortion, and How to correct perspective and geometric distortion? for what you can do about it. Many people ...


5

First important lesson: these automated comparison sites are terrible. They emphasize things which just aren't important and make them sound like a big deal. You say: XT 10 has a bigger pixel area which is one of the reasons I want to switch from D3200 as it has a small sensor pixel area I see that the site lists "49% larger pixel area" as an advantage. ...


5

The pixel size which is mentioned in the size is the size an actual physical pixel has on the sensor itself. So it gives the size the pixel takes in silicon on the sensor. What you are talking is the area the pixel would cover in an image but the physical size of the pixel on the sensor will always stay the same no matter the FOV or working distance or any ...


5

A megapixel is literally 1 million pixels. There's no concept of sub-pixels (more on that in a moment). E.g. suppose a camera has a sensor resolution of 6000 x 4000 (to make the math easy) ... that works out to 24,000,000 pixels or, stated more simply, 24 megapixels. The sensor on a camera is technically a monochrome device. It is covered with a matrix ...


4

I think your reasoning is correct. The problem comes from people mixing abstract terms with their experiences without actually understanding the terms mean. circle-of-confusion (CoC) (in German: "Unschärfekreis") is one of these terms. The literal translation from German means: "circle of non-sharpness" which is IMHO a better description (and the reason ...


4

The main idea here is that bigger sensor yields better picture (if the sensors use the same technology). What Apple have done is to increase the sensor size, and by keep the same number of pixels each pixel will have a higher signal-to-noise-ratio, resulting in a better picture.


3

There is a 1:1 correspondence between photosites and pixels in the resulting image. (Or close to that, give or take some things like distortion correction.) With most cameras, these photosites are behind color filters. However, they do not really function as subpixels, because more sophisticated algorithms are used to create the color image from the raw data....


3

It's all about catching the light that comes in as accurately as possible. It's fairly simple, with a bigger surface (per pixel) you will catch more light and be able to make a more accurate representation of that light in the end-result. It is true that the photo's will be better, but just 15% per pixel isn't spectacular. So it's marketing as well. Nokia ...


3

It depends on what your output is going to be. There is no simple answer to the proper amount of sharpening. Any number of factors can impact your decisions on processing an image. How it will be displayed, what the lighting will be like where it is displayed, what type of medium will be used to display it, what kind of feeling you want the display to ...


3

Apart from everything in Why does the Canon 1D X MK 2 only have 20.2MP For your two examples specifically: The EOS 5DS shoots 7 frames/sec, the EOS-1D X MARK II 14. That alone could be a good reason why the latter needs to use a lower resolution. Not everything can be parallelized, as you assume, eg. the data transfer from sensor to memory and from memory ...


2

No. The sensor is made of discrete photosites. When you reduce the resolution, the RAW data is still the same except that it is downsampled when rendered into a JPEG. So the pixels and amout of area of each photosite remains the same and is shot and read noise at each photosite. Should you reduce the resolution you are also implicitly reducing the amount of ...


2

When studying geometric optics we learn that the lens forms a sharp image of an object at a given distance downstream from the lens; objects at different distances will not image as sharp because their images to lens distances will be different. In other words an object at infinity ( ∞ ), comes to a focus nearer the lens than a close by object. Practical ...


2

Reliability. Speed. Megapixels. In a handheld, battery powered form factor you can only have two out of the three that are at the absolute state of the art. Cameras such as the 1D X Mark II and the Nikon D5 are for users who choose the first two. Do you also expect the Formula 1 purpose built race cars made by Ferrari and Daimler-Benz to have leather ...


2

... small sensor pixel area and the reason I got the 35mm lens... It seems you are confusing "pixel area" with "small sensor". Pixel area is associated with pixel density and does not affect the focal length required to frame your subject. Sensor size does change field of view and framing. FujiFilm X-series cameras and your current Nikon DSLR share the same ...


2

What you are observing is: Objects close to the camera reproduce large and object further from the camera reproduce small. This is not a digital thing vs. an analog thing, welcome to the world of “perspective”. Fortunately, except for special technical applications, imaging with geometrically correct perspective is not a requirement. To understand what ...


1

But how does this work in practice? Are there trade-offs involved? There are always trade-offs involved. In the case of quad-pixel and now nona-pixel sensors, the amount of color resolution is reduced from what one would expect to get from the full number of pixels. For 48MP quad-pixel sensors that output 12MP when using binning, their color resolution is ...


1

The word subpixel comes into play in the jargon of photography when we display an image. The red, green, and blue glowing components of the display, TV or computer or projection screen. In other words, the image data that comprise a pixel is fractured into three subpixels when the image is displayed.


1

With regards to the body, there is no question: the D7500 is far better suited to fast action photography. The D500 would be even better, but is perhaps outside your price envelope. The choice of lens, as you've surmised through good research, is less clear. All of your concerns are valid. Personally, I would lean toward the 80-200mm. The 70-300mm is too ...


1

The D3200, T10, and T100 are all APS-C as far as I can tell, so no difference in sensor size. More focus points is a double-edged sword. I disabled most of the points in my T6 (it as only 9, I'm using only the middle one) because it would not focus on what I wanted it to, especially on a small DoF. Sensor resolution (the MP) only comes into play if you ...


1

Let's address your issues with existing answers : All pixels are not equal Each of the said cameras have a full-frame sensor. Increasing the pixel count may make each pixel capture less light, but more pixels give the ability to combine nearby pixels. See the second and forth points above. Combining adjacent pixels presents two issues : Firstly the ...


1

Your conclusion is partially correct. You will get some noise reduction as part of the downscaling process. But it will come from the same image and camera settings (shutter, aperture, ISO) won't be different for the S and L modes. It's also likely that the S mode is using a lower quality setting on the JPEG encoder, which will negate some of the gains ...


1

I do not know your specific camera model, but I think in general that the S-to-L scale refers to the size of the compressed jpg image when stored on your camera memory card. In other words, your camera takes a raw picture at most of its possibilities and then compresses it in jpg format to save space on disk. Jpg is a lossy format, it means you can compress ...


1

Sensor size matters more than pixel size. Diffraction becomes an issue the smaller your aperture becomes and that means that as you stop down, a camera reaches a point where it is "diffraction limited". Basically, the area of light made by diffraction becomes larger than the size of a pixel and thus the resolution can not exceed that point. The larger ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible